Summation from transcript:

THE COURT:

3 At the beginning of today's hearing, I asked what

4 evidence the parties agreed that the Court should be

5 considering. I believe all of the exhibits that were

6 identified have been received, 1, 2, 3, 3A, B, C, and 4. I

7 asked which terms the parties desired the Court to construe in

8 hierarchy, and all the evidence and argument has pertained to

9 two terms: "flash memory" and "flash memory module which

10 operates as sole memory of the received processed sound

11 electrical signals and is capable of retaining recorded digital

12 information for storage in nonvolatile form."

If this is the crux of the proceedings, consider this part of the hearing Pages 80-88 (Elwood Norris Redirect). Woody Norris explains the processing of analog to digital signals and then the storage to flash memory in a non-volital form. I would imagine that this was the point where Dr. Nunally refers to taking the flash card out of the device and the device would no longer work.

The problem again is that the patent was written without such specificity. Is that common for a patent so that it's not too restrictive? Is the balance of the patents wording and the theory of intrinsic meanin/record, and the understanding of the patent to " one of ordinary skill in the art" enough for a pro-EDIG verdict?

Bosocker, I completely understand where you are coming from. I keep re-reading the transcripts and logically I feel EDIG has the upper hand BUT ONLY SLIGHTLY. IMHO it comes down to " one of ordinary skill in the art" interpretation.

It maybe due to 11 plus years of EDIG conditioning that my logic says EDIG win, my guts says game over. I'm just hoping it's the burrito I ate.